Sign-in / Sign-up

Test System And Settings

Resident Evil 5: Demo Performance Analyzed
By

We chose the “Fixed Benchmark” option in the Resident Evil 5 test in order to compare performance between different PC configurations. Note that we used two test systems: a Core i7-920-based system for the majority of the benchmarks and a Core 2 Quad Q6600-based system to demonstrate what a slower CPU architecture, lower clock speeds, and fewer CPU cores could provide in the way of performance.

Once again, we chose to test a range of graphics cards from our “Best Cards For The Money” column. This gives us a nice broad spectrum of cards to scrutinize from a range of budgets.

Our Radeon HD 4870 benchmarks were based on the performance of a reference Radeon HD 4890 that was underclocked down to Radeon HD 4870 clock rates--this will deliver reference Radeon HD 4870 performance, as the Radeon HD 4890 is essentially an overclocked Radeon HD 4870.


Graphic Test SystemCPU Test System
CPU

Intel Core i7-920 (Nehalem),
2.67 GHz, QPI-2400, 8 MB Cache

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (Kentsfield),
2.7 GHz, FSB-1200, 8 MB Cache

Motherboard

ASRock X58 Supercomputer
Intel X58, BIOS P1.90

ASUS P5K
Intel P35, BIOS 0902

Networking
Onboard Realtek Gigabit LAN controller

Onboard Gigabit Ethernet

Memory

Mushkin PC3-10700
3 x 2,048 MB, DDR3-1066, CL 8-8-8-19 at 1.8 V

A-Data Extreme DDR2 800+
2 x 2,048 MB, DDR2-800, CL 5-5-5-18 at 1.8 V

Graphics

Sapphire HD4650 512 MB DDR2 PCIe
Gigabyte GV-N96TSL-1GI 1 GB DDR3 PCIe
Diamond Radeon HD 4770 512 MB DDR5 PCIe
Powercolor AX4830 512 MB DDR3 PCIe
Gigabyte GV-NX88T512HPV1 512 MB DDR3 PCIe
Asus ENGTS250 DK 1 GB DDR3 PCIe
Asus EAH4850 MT 512 MB DDR3 PCIe
Asus ENGTX260 796 MB DDR3 PCIe
ATI Radeon HD 4870 reference

Asus ENGTS250 DK 1 GB DDR3 PCIe

Hard Drive

Western Digital Caviar WD50 00AAJS-00YFA,
500 GB, 7,200 RPM, 8 MB cache, SATA 3.0 GB/s

Western Digital Caviar WD50 00AAJS-00YFA,
500 GB, 7,200 RPM, 8 MB cache, SATA 3.0 GB/s

Power

Thermaltake Toughpower 1200W
1,200 W, ATX 12V 2.2, EPS 12v 2.91

Ultra HE1000X
ATX 2.2, 1,000 W

Software and Drivers
Operating System
Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit 6.0.6001, SP1
DirectX versionDirectX 10
Graphics Drivers

Nvidia ForceWare 190.38, ATI Catalyst 9.8

Display all 56 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 14 Hide
    wh3resmycar , September 14, 2009 12:33 PM
    ^ worst brain ever?
  • 12 Hide
    nforce4max , September 14, 2009 11:30 AM
    spathiCan you test it on Larrabee plz, ty


    Larrabee is like a smart and honest politician both are mythological.
Other Comments
  • 5 Hide
    gkay09 , September 14, 2009 6:28 AM
    Does this imply that game developers in general dint even utilize the full potential of DirectX 9 and jumped on DirextX 10 bandwagon and now to DirextX 11?
  • 0 Hide
    renz496 , September 14, 2009 6:41 AM
    i've tried the benchmark before. the dx 10 produce slightly better frame rate than dx9. this game have better performance in dx 10 compared to dx 9 in my machine
  • 0 Hide
    yellosnowman , September 14, 2009 7:01 AM
    Am I going blind or is there no HD4890
    or is this just a quick benchmark before the HD5*** series
  • 1 Hide
    mitch074 , September 14, 2009 7:24 AM
    @yellosnowman: there is a 4890, but it's been downclocked to 4870 levels (read the article) to be used as reference for Radeon performances (tests on Radeon wasn't too extensive, as the benchmark is optimized for Nvidia hardware). And yes, with HD 5xxx almost there, doing complete benchmarks here is pretty much useless: the game is playable with everything at full on a Radeon HD 4770 up to Full HD quality.
  • 5 Hide
    Spathi , September 14, 2009 7:34 AM
    Can you test it on Larrabee plz, ty
  • -7 Hide
    voltagetoe , September 14, 2009 8:58 AM
    Gkay09, Direct X 10 was a failure because Vista was a failure. DX 9 has been thoroughly utilized - there has been no other choice.
  • 0 Hide
    juliom , September 14, 2009 9:05 AM
    On the variable benchmark @ 1680 x 1050 2x AA my Phenom II x4 955 and Radeon 4870 pulls and average of 80 fps in directx 9. I'm happy and have the game pre-ordered on Steam :) 
  • 0 Hide
    amnotanoobie , September 14, 2009 9:32 AM
    voltagetoeGkay09, Direct X 10 was a failure because Vista was a failure. DX 9 has been thoroughly utilized - there has been no other choice.

    Wasn't it more of because the mainstream DX10 cards (8600GT and 2600XT) didn't really perform well, and even some were beaten by previous generation cards. As such, pushing the detail level higher might mean fewer sales as fewer people had the cards to play the games at decent levels (8800GTS 320MB/640MB or 2900XT).
  • 0 Hide
    HTDuro , September 14, 2009 9:58 AM
    DX10 isnt really a failure .. if programmer take time to really work on DX10 optimisation .. more on SM4.0. remember Assassins creed? ubisoft take time to work on SM4.0 and the game work better in D10 than 9 ... higher framerate with better shadow
  • -9 Hide
    pirateboy , September 14, 2009 10:04 AM
    looks like yet another boring shooter mainly targeted at console users.
    RE5 = FAIL
  • -2 Hide
    dangerous_23 , September 14, 2009 10:33 AM
    anyone got a download link for the demo?
  • 1 Hide
    antemon , September 14, 2009 11:25 AM
    4650 + dual core = medium settings?

    good enough for me...
  • 12 Hide
    nforce4max , September 14, 2009 11:30 AM
    spathiCan you test it on Larrabee plz, ty


    Larrabee is like a smart and honest politician both are mythological.
  • 14 Hide
    wh3resmycar , September 14, 2009 12:33 PM
    ^ worst brain ever?
  • 2 Hide
    blackened144 , September 14, 2009 1:30 PM
    At least it should be a better port than RE4. When it loaded up it wanted me to hit "Start" to load the game, then the red "A" to play. My keyboard doesnt have a "Start" button or a red "A". Useless without a controller.
  • 2 Hide
    San Pedro , September 14, 2009 1:32 PM
    Very interesting that Capcom told the site that there is no graphical difference between DX 9 and 10. I'll know which I'll be using with my ATI card.
  • 1 Hide
    gxpbecker , September 14, 2009 1:43 PM
    Nice a game and performance review in one, I like.
    Is it just me or is this kinda hinting at software trying to catch up to hardware (the ever existing cycle). :)  kinda funny since the 5xxx and 3xx are just around the corner.
  • 1 Hide
    Andraxxus , September 14, 2009 2:19 PM
    It looks good on both DX9 and DX10 and the specs are not high.
Display more comments